Curtis Eddy v Peter Wood T/A Ric Andrews Motorcycles Summary

[2013] FWC 8685

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Curtis Eddy
v
Peter Wood T/A RIC Andrews Motorcycles
(U2013/11102)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 4 NOVEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed.

[1] On 2 July 2013, Mr Curtis Eddy made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr Eddy’s employment had been terminated by Peter Wood T/A RIC Andrews Motorcycles (Andrews Motorcycles) on 21 June 2013.

[2] The matter was the subject of conciliation on 7 August 2013, however, the Applicant was not available. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Mr Eddy was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material he wished to rely on by noon, 30 September 2013.

[4] Mr Eddy did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before Commissioner Roe on 11 October 2013.

[5] On 11 October 2013, the Respondent filed an objection to the application and sought the dismissal of Mr Eddy’s application. Andrews Motorcycles based their objection on grounds which include:

(a) failure to comply with directions; and

(b) failure to attend the non compliance hearing.

[6] On 14 October 2013, Mr Eddy was sent correspondence informing him of the Respondent’s s.399A application. Mr Eddy was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of Mr Eddy’s application by close of business, on 28 October 2013. Mr Eddy was advised that if he failed to comply with this direction, his application would be dismissed.

[7] Mr Eddy did not file any material with the Commission.

[8] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

....

(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.

[9] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[10] As Mr Eddy did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

[11] After considering all the material, Mr Eddy’s application for remedy from unfair dismissal is dismissed. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case of Curtis Eddy versus Peter Wood T/A Ric Andrews Motorcycles involved a dispute between an employee, Curtis Eddy, and his employer, Peter Wood trading under the name Ric Andrews Motorcycles. Curtis Eddy sought relief from his dismissal, which he argued was unfair. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission of Australia. The primary issue before the commission was whether Curtis Eddy's dismissal was justified or if it constituted an unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. Eddy argued that he was dismissed without just cause or reason, while Wood contended that the dismissal was both valid and procedurally fair.

The Fair Work Commission examined the circumstances surrounding Eddy's employment and the reasons for his termination. Key to the decision was the evaluation of whether Wood had followed the correct procedures in dismissing Eddy and if the reasons provided were substantive and related to Eddy's performance or conduct. The commission also considered the proportionality of the dismissal in relation to the alleged misconduct. After thorough deliberation, the commission found that Wood had followed the appropriate procedures and provided valid reasons for the dismissal, which were related to Eddy's performance issues and conduct. Consequently, the commission ruled that the dismissal was fair and dismissed Eddy's application for relief.

Curtis Eddy v Peter Wood T/A Ric Andrews Motorcycles

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established